When I bought the D7K, it was to use it interim to the upgrade for the D700 (i.e. I was always aiming to be shooting FX). Concern is that I have really loved using this camera, and unless there is a reasonable improvement / benefit to picture quality for me (in my general applications), I don't see the point dropping that kind of money right now.

I generally used to shoot a lot of portraits (often with flashes), but since the last year I have been shooting a lot of indoors low light (without flash) photography and this is where I run into the problem). Had Nikon released a D800 with 16-20 MP, I would have jumped on it, but with the same pixel pitch of the D7000, I don't see the BIG benefit. Everyone seems to be talking about when you downsize the pictures, the D800 is great at high ISO's... but then WHY BUY THE "BIG PICTURE"?

To be honest, I do not have a budget ... I am considering the D800, D3S or D4. So the question for the forum is, if I get one of those, which one should it be, or should I wait for 6-8 months and see if Nikon too has plans for D700s type of body in the making (there are rumors of a lower end full frame Canon camera later this year).

Forgot to mention that I don't really shoot much video (aside from maybe the occasional video of my son tearing the house down), so even the D3S with the 720 p would be okay (and in any case I would still have the D7K with me).

Similarly I don't do professional sports photography, so the 4 fps is usually good enough (considering that I usually leave my D7K in CL mode when I want short bursts).

The other thing that the D7K has which I know the D800 doesn't (not sure about the D4) is the U1 & U2 features ... which I use ALL THE TIME! I have the U1 set for shooting indoors in my own home (color balanced, ISO limits, etc etc) and the U2 for shooting on location without flashes (again for ISO limits, aperture priority, minimum shutter speeds, modified auto white balance)